duplicate_pattern

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (the original becomes the first item) but says nothing about scene mutation, reversibility, whether existing objects are affected, or the return value. For a 17-parameter generation tool this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the examples, with essentially no filler. The trailing example list is a little loose but earns its place as disambiguation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 17-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It fails to connect the five pattern modes to their governing parameters or describe what calling it changes in the scene, leaving most of the tool's behavior undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 24% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it explains no parameter at all. The examples loosely hint at radial and grid modes but give no mapping to axis, count, offset, spacing, positions, radius, center, mirror_axes, or name_prefix.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Repeat an object in a pattern') and adds a concrete behavioral fact ('the original becomes the first item'). The real-world examples (legs, spokes, chairs, shelves, bolts, tiles, fence posts) make the intent immediately graspable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'scatter', which also places many copies, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied through the illustrative examples, which suggest radial (spokes, chairs), grid (tiles, shelves), and linear cases. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over siblings like scatter or the create_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.